The Ripper's Signature........

[smezenen]

That would not have any bearing on his signature, Smez - that being what he did to the victims during, and after, their deaths... the "trademark" he left behind.

No, I'm sure I was thinking about his signature. As you say what he did to his victims during and after their deaths. I was gearing my remarks toward the "extent of the mutilation" as it has been sugested that this could not have been Jacks kill becouse he took organs from the thorax instead of the abdomin. there are those that argue the signature is not the same, I argue that it is, its just bolder and underlined. the indoor/outdoor debate relates directly to this topic when you discuse time with the victim.

[Sam Flynn]

Not trying to derail the thread here but the debate over weather Kelly stayed in or went out does relate to the Rippers signature in discussing weather or not those factors would change his signature any if at all.

That would not have any bearing on his signature, Smez - that being what he did to the victims during, and after, their deaths... the "trademark" he left behind.

You may be thinking about his modus operandi, or "MO" - the way he operated before he killed. Even then, a killer's MO needn't remain unchanged, and external variables might well influence how an offender behaves. In other words, MO's can (and will) change depending on circumstance.

Factors such as the weather, the police presence on the streets, and the behaviour of the victims themselves, were entirely beyond the killer's control. The MO therefore cannot be seen as a reliable indicator of whether a given killer was or wasn't involved in a particular murder. People make that mistake time and time again.

Once he'd overpowered his victim, the manner in which he kills and the subsequent mutilations start to become relevant - and now he's free to "sign his name", so to speak. This "signature" element is far less sensitive to external influences than the MO, and is therefore a far better indicator of a killer's work than any "prelude to murder" could possibly be.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Smezenen

The Chapman outdoor crime scene almost mirrors the indoor crime scene of Kelly, the indoor scenario allowing for the victim to be undressed.

[smezenen]

Sam,
Not trying to derail the thread here but the debate over weather Kelly stayed in or went out does relate to the Rippers signature in discussing weather or not those factors would change his signature any if at all.

[Sam Flynn]

this makes me think he broke in queitly to Kelly's room
with knife in hand awaking Kelly in the process

Thanks, qotsa - but, as I've said, this discussion really isn't about Kelly in isolation. There are innumerable threads on the Kelly boards, and some "derailed" threads on non-Kelly boards for that matter, which go into that topic - at greaaaaaaaaat length

[Sam Flynn]

Is the Ripper signature just mutilation...general cutting, or was it specific cutting before Mary Kelly is murdered? Jack cut into Polly and Annie and Kate after they had been defeated physically without a knife, and then had their throats opened. Can we say Mary is cut based on the same data? She could easily have received many cuts before the throat cut and while conscious and resisting.

Again, that would have more to do with the behaviour of the victim. I mean, we can hardly ascribe the injuries sustained by the victim's self-defence to the signature of the killer, can we?

hope things are sunny and warm in Wales.

I hope not, Mike - it's three hours after sunset here

[qotsa]

this makes me think he broke in queitly to Kelly's room
with knife in hand awaking Kelly in the process

It was a thought-experiment, Mike, not an excuse to launch into yet another discussion about whether Kelly stayed in or not. I hinted - and hoped! - as much in my post.

Please, please, please let's not turn this into yet another "Kelly stayed in" thread! This is about the killer's signature - not speculating about the behaviour of any one of his victims.

Thats not a problem Sam, that would be a very weak platform to remain perched on in and of itself.

The Signature wouldnt have to be part of that kind of MO departure anyway. Is the Ripper signature just mutilation...general cutting, or was it specific cutting before Mary Kelly is murdered? Jack cut into Polly and Annie and Kate after they had been defeated physically without a knife, and then had their throats opened. Can we say Mary is cut based on the same data? She could easily have received many cuts before the throat cut and while conscious and resisting.

Before Mary, Jack cuts (mutilations) into only dead women. In Marys murder, her killer cut her wherever he could.... while she could still fight back, before her throat was even cut perhaps.

If anything the Ripper up until Mary fights his prey without a knife, and uses the knife only when he has won. Defensive wounds say that was not the case in room 13.

Cheers Gareth, hope things are sunny and warm in Wales.

[Sam Flynn]

Cri de coeur!

And that pre-supposes that despite the lack of any accredited evidence that might suggest Mary ever left her room after arriving home at 11:45am, she did anyway.

It was a thought-experiment, Mike, not an excuse to launch into yet another discussion about whether Kelly stayed in or not. I hinted - and hoped! - as much in my post.

Please, please, please let's not turn this into yet another "Kelly stayed in" thread! This is about the killer's signature - not speculating about the behaviour of any one of his victims.

[Malcolm X]

Now this is where we have a bridge issue then Ben....because by killing a woman who had a room in her name and could be readily be identified as soon as the lease was checked,... means that at least in this case, the killer in room 13 may not have considered this "personal" element being an issue for him.

That might mean she was without any connection to him so he had no fear in that regard, or it could means that this killer didnt consider the implications of his actions.

Why do lovers kill each other violently when everyone knows they will be among the very few initial suspects usually? Or why do some hire strangers to do it?

Cause many dont think about the investigations when they kill...they do so in an emotionally aroused state.

I think Mr Ripper was as cold a fish as they come when he worked. He planned to kill....he didnt just kill when aggravated. And I think room 13 has some emotional, personal content in evidence.

Im off for a bit Ben, I moved on Thursday and have lots of work to do...cheers Mate, see you soon.

All the best amigo.

it's amazing what people vision in a murder site, Mike sees this totally different to me.....but that's ok..

he prowled the streets for women, that plyed their trade on the streets and not from a room like Mary.....this tells me he was strolling down Dorset st looking for a prostitute out in the open, hoping to take her somewhere quiet, but not necesarily back to her room, OF COURSE A ROOM WOULD BE BETTER, but that's just a dream for the ripper, minus this; a street kill would have to do; he's not that fussy!

so Kelly having a room ?......well the Ripper's in paradise (obviously), it's the icing on the cake....this points towards Blotchy face.

but we have this problem of her waking up..so i'm not sure.

``you can come back to my place, i'm alone all night long, you dont have to leave till the morning and we wont be disturbed``..

JTR would think, ``WOW, GREAT, i can really go to town on this one, as long as i dont kill her too early, this girl is young, she may have loads of friends; especially on a saturday night``

this is honest to God almost definitely what he'd think, but the other prostitutes wouldn't go inside, so he was limited to quick street murders with a fixed M.O, mutilations yes, but only quick gutting...not enough time for anything else.

but was the Ripper right?..... yes his tactics were spot on, he couldn't afford to mutilate any longer than about 5 to 10 mins, not in busy Whitechapel, you'll always see someone in a busy city about once every 15 to 20 mins, a city is never dead at night....and his time to mutilate has to include talking to her, walking with her, strangling etc..... it's the maximum time in her presence both alive and dead, about 15 to 20 mins.

it's like where i live in a small town in HAMPSHIRE, there's always people about late at night, you have to go right into the countryside before it's really quiet at night....in a city you've got partygoers, drunks, people going too and fro late/early shifts/ markets etc, people simply restless/ dossing on the streets etc.... never dead at night....never

i mean.... he even almost got caught at Eddowes, so this 10 to 20 mins time frame is crucial, no longer.

you'll notice, although indoors and with all the time in the world, that he still didn't sever MARY's head..... he therefore never intended to out on the streets either, this is the one of the strongest signs of a Signature! .......if this was a copycat, good grief; he knew a hell of a lot about JTR !

the M.O is correct after the first quick cut to the throat onwards, but before that, you can see that something disasterous hapenned, that prevented him from strangling her, yes she woke up in fright, something disturbed her sleep.

Indeed, Mike, which meant that if the offender was in a position to dispatch and dispose of these homeless women at his own home, they effectively disappear. There are no incriminating connections to his base because nobody suspects they have been murdered, and the number of people bothering to look for them is very slim indeed.

There's no denying the obvious advantage of that!

Nice to catch you here too, Mike.

Best regards,
Ben

Now this is where we have a bridge issue then Ben....because by killing a woman who had a room in her name and could be readily be identified as soon as the lease was checked,... means that at least in this case, the killer in room 13 may not have considered this "personal" element being an issue for him.

That might mean she was without any connection to him so he had no fear in that regard, or it could means that this killer didnt consider the implications of his actions.

Why do lovers kill each other violently when everyone knows they will be among the very few initial suspects usually? Or why do some hire strangers to do it?

Cause many dont think about the investigations when they kill...they do so in an emotionally aroused state.

I think Mr Ripper was as cold a fish as they come when he worked. He planned to kill....he didnt just kill when aggravated. And I think room 13 has some emotional, personal content in evidence.

Im off for a bit Ben, I moved on Thursday and have lots of work to do...cheers Mate, see you soon.

All the best amigo.

[Ben]

For him, for them.....remember few of these women were even identified easily because they were homeless.

Indeed, Mike, which meant that if the offender was in a position to dispatch and dispose of these homeless women at his own home, they effectively disappear. There are no incriminating connections to his base because nobody suspects they have been murdered, and the number of people bothering to look for them is very slim indeed.

There's no denying the obvious advantage of that!

Nice to catch you here too, Mike.

Best regards,
Ben

That's true, Mike.

But that needn't indicate a preference so much as a lack of better options. If he had private accomodation, he might well have taken his victims there, for all we know. Gacy, Dahmer and Nielsen did. The same is true of his victim-type. Rather than seeking a particular type or look in a female victim, it would seem more likely that they were simply the most readily available victims of opportunity.

We don't know that, Mike, and there's no evidence that he knew it either. The vast majority of prostitutes in the district lived in lodging houses of one type or another, and the few that didn't were likely to have at least one companion living with them. In reality, he would have been quite fortunate to encounter a Kelly-esque domestic set-up.

Have an enjoyable weekend thanks, mate!

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

The benefit that I can see immediately to outdoor venues while the women worked is this Ben.....neutrality. For him, for them.....remember few of these women were even identified easily because they were homeless.

No links to his home, their lodging house, or any personal connection he might have had with a victim.

He was impersonal. So should the venue be.

Mary was killed by someone in a very personal manner....in bed, undressed, in a room of her own, perhaps while sleeping. Some specific wounds suggest a possible personal link...the facial destruction, and the choice of a heart rather than the womb that he wanted from the others it seems.

One factor we can use to query this as a Ripper crime is the nature of the new venue and its possible context.

There is very little that is insignificant with the argument on her viability....her state at the time, the location, the resulting wounds inflicted...any differences in any of those areas to previously attributed Ripper murders is relevant and needs to be factored in for that assessment.

Cheers Ben, nice catching you on here at the same time.

[Ben]

Jack killed the women where he found them

That's true, Mike.

But that needn't indicate a preference so much as a lack of better options. If he had private accomodation, he might well have taken his victims there, for all we know. Gacy, Dahmer and Nielsen did. The same is true of his victim-type. Rather than seeking a particular type or look in a female victim, it would seem more likely that they were simply the most readily available victims of opportunity.

Well.....we know that within Millers Court alone there were a few "whores" he could have got at

We don't know that, Mike, and there's no evidence that he knew it either. The vast majority of prostitutes in the district lived in lodging houses of one type or another, and the few that didn't were likely to have at least one companion living with them. In reality, he would have been quite fortunate to encounter a Kelly-esque domestic set-up.

Have an enjoyable weekend thanks, mate!

Best regards,
Ben

Let's face it, Kelly was out on the streets at a time when we know that a killer capable of such atrocities was definitely in the vicinity. On that basis, there may have been an increased chance that somebody was going to meet a sticky end that night.

And that pre-supposes that despite the lack of any accredited evidence that might suggest Mary ever left her room after arriving home at 11:45am, she did anyway.

Women without rooms, beds, perhaps nightclothes to sleep in or fires to warm themselves by were his prey. They ran the risk of meeting Jack during that period.

Not sleeping women in small courtyards, undressed and in their own beds. Since Mary's addition makes her the only such victim attributed to Jack....that seems borne out in the evidence available.

Best regards Sam.